rhaig

looks like a win-win. They had to deal with him for 5 hours, and he got detained for 5 hours. Suffering on both sides!! :) -- Rob

The article presents only one side of the issue (the Texas Attorney General), but even so this one looks like nothing but trouble. From a second Briebart article, it seems (as far as I can understand it, without any explicit explanation of the BLM position), that the BLM is using uncertainty about the exact placement of the Texas/Oklahoma border (which the two states dispute), meandering of the Red River creating and consuming land, and legalistic arguments about whether or not Texas had authority to deed land that was covered in the Louisiana Purchase, as a basis for contemplating taking control of 90,000 acres. I think it would be a huge mistake for the BLM to attempt to use technicalities to seize land that has been deeded for 200 years. Despite the amount of smoke and noise generated by anti-federal-government hotheads over the Bundy issue, I believe most Americans see him as land-grabbing tax avoiding nutjob. If the BLM moves to take over private land, where people have deeds and actual long history with the land, I doubt there will be any sympathy at all for their position, only anger that could result in the political destruction of the BLM. Don Damn good post! I really believe the BLM does step over the bounds of their Agency. I feel too, their bottom line is power and greed with an undercurrent of gain and that gain being more than land. Chuck I saw a news story on it the other day and they're basically saying that when the river erodes the bank, that the border moves, but when the bank of the river moves north through other mechanisms (river course change, water level drop, they listed a couple of others, but I don't recall) that the border doesn't move south. -- Rob

That's what I figured this thread would be about. This article has a little more background: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/23/The-Land-Grabbing-Feds -- Rob

if it was free, we wouldn't be having this argument thread. If it was free, then it would qualify as welfare perhaps. So which is it? Did he not pay fees he was supposed to? Or did the feds screw up and bill him when it was supposed to be welfare and be free? -- Rob

could you be relying on cherry-picked numbers? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/5/gun-advocates-credit-new-concealed-carry-laws-shar/ so which is more statistically significant? The number of shootings on the weekend, or the number of shootings during the first quarter of the year? -- Rob

yeah... he's right. drop this thread. Take the time you would have spent bickering here, and spend it learning about what else is going on in the world. (internationally or domestically, I don't care) I mean, you can only watch a train wreck for so long before it isn't interesting anymore. -- Rob

Not quite. You suggested that ONLY a face to face visit was required as if to suggest this entire thing could be avoided by two local BLM agents knocking on a door. I'm fairly certain that over the years this was part of the chain of escalation. You and others have also implied this "siege" was the first time the rancher had ever been made aware of the situation he had created by allowing his cattle to graze on public land without paying the accosted fees to to so. That is all nonsense whipped up into a right-wing militia frenzy by the family with the assistance of said same groups. wow... look who's been taking shit stirring lessons from Prof Kallend -- Rob

Option 3: Get the president to headline an event to make money for the group that owes all those taxes. -- Rob

So, because some dude say so on his Facebook page? I dunno. Maybe that qualifies as being a lawyer in Nevada. I said it was a point of view. Don't assume too much. -- Rob

a different point of view on this matter http://www.libertyandlead.com/2014/04/13/why-cliven-bundy-is-not-wrong-from-a-fellow-rancher/ -- Rob

he's been to court and was ordered to pay. He was told to remove his cattle or BLM would do it for him. This isn't debtors prison. This is failure to follow a lawful order of a judge. (or whatever legal specificities that were involved in the original ruling) -- Rob

bottom line is it doesn't matter. We are a rule-of-law society. The absurd financial impact analysis statement I made is what we are coming to as we are ruled by corporations owning lobbyists who are writing legislation and buying politicians to vote for it. The laws say he owes $$$, the judge says he owes $$$, if he's not willing to pay, then they need to arrest him. -- Rob

Depends. Do the financial analysis. Which is costing more. Letting the guy rack up a bill, with fines and interest and when he dies take it out of his estate, or the constant legal battles and potential for violent confrontation. Take that over the remaining time of his expected life, and do the simple math. Which costs more? By that logic, we should never prosecute a mugger because the cost of imprisoning him far exceeds the damage he does to his victims. Are we all having a blonde moment understanding what law enforcement means? 'Wait and take it out of his estate is the stupidest fucking thing I've heard all week.' You're not taking into account the financial impact of not enforcing the law. I left all that out wholly expecting you to extend the factors to include public perception of lawlessness and what that would cause in the short to mid term. Why so short sighted?

Depends. Do the financial analysis. Which is costing more. Letting the guy rack up a bill, with fines and interest and when he dies take it out of his estate, or the constant legal battles and potential for violent confrontation. Take that over the remaining time of his expected life, and do the simple math. Which costs more? -- Rob

Sure, as soon as you do the same. Apparently anyone who doesn't vote the way you think they should must be ignorant and lazy. see... you're reading too much into this. I don't care who you vote for. I just wish voters would educate themselves about the candidates before they voted. I said straight ticket voters were ignorant and lazy. You must have been too lazy to read that part. -- Rob

Oh I believe you. There is simply no way to ensure that a voting public is educated on what they are choosing. Any method to try to do so would disenfranchise the ignorant and lazy. And even though they're ignorant and lazy, they get a right to vote. Even if they choose to hand that to a party by casting a straight ticket vote instead of picking the best candidates on the ballot. I know it's not a viable solution, I just wish people did a little research into their candidates and their platforms. So put your condescension back in your pocket and move on. -- Rob

It would be based on the candidates self-published platform as the purpose would be just to figure out if you knew who you were voting for. Just a few key questions. The scores would be determined at the same time the vote was counted (presumably by the same method) It'll never happen though. There are too many lazy ignorant straight ticket voters who would bitch and moan at having to educate themselves about the candidates. -- Rob

+1 Should include PDEs, linear algebra, quantum mechanics and general relativity. ha ha I've long said that there should be a basic test of at least the platforms of the candidates. I'm good with adding basic math, economics and civics. -- Rob

partisan reasons should bring prison time. Yes. I'm not sure what you mean by fraud in that sentence. are you referring to denying someone a vote because of suspected voter fraud? Making voting day a national holiday isn't objectionable to me. It would let it fall under state laws for holiday pay. Did you have your coffee yet? Not sure what you're saying here. Make all forms of state issued ID valid for voter identification? Works for me. I think any voter-ID law should include provisions for a free state-issued ID card for those who can show inability to pay, as well as provisions for a way to get the non-mobile population an ID as well (perhaps a mobile ID unit that would travel around the state). -- Rob

just trying to get an idea of your ever fluid thoughts on the matter. You seem to think it's OK that this happened. If you're not, you would have added an answer to your reply. -- Rob

so you're ok with what has happened to these "poor newspapers"? -- Rob

Is that a new forum rule? I don't see it in Sangiro's 4 rules or in the forum stickys. Look right there... 2 one-liners. -- Rob

The problem is people being charged for being fed and housed in jail. and it still doesn't amount to "slavery" but it's a nice high value word to attract emotional (instead of logical) discussion. -- Rob

it doesn't have the same ring to it. -- Rob

Unfortunately, the way the laws are currently structured, there's no way to tell! The unions have to state how much they contribute because they are beholding to their members. Billionaires don't have to tell anyone. They can funnel as much money as they want into 501(c)s (because "corporations are people") and they don't have to have their names sullied, but now with this, there isn't any legal reason to even do that. so this is the "you can't prove your assertion, so therefore my unprovable assertion is more valid" argument. -- Rob